A thought provoking post by Neil responding to “Why do Straights Hate Gays” which was written by Larry Kramer the founder of ACT UP.
The tone of Neil’s post was saying I don’t hate you, but I’m not crazy about some of the things you stand for. Mr. Kramer’s editorial, written in the LA Times, brings many arguments, some more persuasive than others depicting societal hatred of homosexuality. Both sides score some points.
A thought provoking post, and I see my nods for this blog for the “TB Award” not the illness, paid off! 
Neil is correct to assert that you – and I think this means sane people in society – don’t hate anybody, and no one can know what is in the human heart other than the actions that you take. Even wishing to maintain the current social atmosphere vis a vis gay marriage etc. is not inherently hatred, but it could be perceived that way.
By the same token, the author makes good points concerning hate crimes, which are a reality, and while going down, are often visited upon subgroups because of their differences from the mainstream. Some of those who also may oppose this groups assertions of rights, often are disinterested in the truth that these people are “singled out because they are gay”. Indifference may not be hatred, but it isn’t a leap to see it as such.
Change is never easy, and our society is changing with its views towards homosexuals. They are a part of our community at large, and are at the very least entitled to civility and respect. They are also entitled to fair equittable treatment by the law and should be afforded the same rights as any citizen. Marriage is not a Constitutional right, and requires a license.
The method that societal changes should come about are by the legislature and by the heart. The course that many of the changes seem to be coming about is via the courts, which if these are Constitutional issues are fine, but if not, they are improper.
Let the legislatures, and hopefully the affirmations of equality in the eyes of the law, and under heaven work out needed societal changes. Both sides need to work on this, not just gays nor just straights.
A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World 
Mind if I ask, what is the “TB Award”?
Comment by totaltransformation — April 16, 2007 @ 11:52 pm |
Thinking Blogger
Comment by avoiceofreason — April 17, 2007 @ 12:00 am |
There are a number of things I do not approve of doing myself, but that does not relate to hate. I do not hate anyone. I wish we could all be happy doing what we prefer without causing distress or pain to one another. I think some aspects of a person’s life should be private. Not a hidden secret or anything so clandestine, but simply private. Not advertised or in your face. No one likes that behavior.
Comment by madmouser — April 17, 2007 @ 12:59 am |
Agreed that it should be private, but let’s consider this.
I teach and at school I at times use examples from my family to iterate points. What if I were a homosexual? Would that preclude me using “my family” as an example because it is different. I can “understand” why it wouldn’t be appropriate in some cases.
How about PDA – Is holding hands or a kiss inappropriate in public. Most times not really, if it is done discreetly. However, if a homosexual does the same action holding hands or a chaste kiss, does the reality that it may turn a few stomachs matter. Is that “in your face advertisement”?
You see, I’m with you on this, but I think in fairness and in candor, the main article from which Neil drew his thesis has some real points about perceptions and perspectives. Would I welcome a homosexual couple moving in next door? I’d like to think if they kept their lawn neat, and were pleasant neighbors I would, and that I would “welcome” them into my community. I don’t think this is too grand a concession for human beings – to be civil to each other. If that’s the point, it’s well taken.
Civil and fair treatment with regard to child custody and visitation, estate issues, visitation in hospitals, and life decisions “should” be settled matters, but often they are not when one of the parties is a homosexual. Bias is bias, and if the person in question is by all standards obeying the law and living peaceably, that person, regardless of other data, and sexual preference is among them, has equal rights and should be accorded all kindness in civil dealings. This is not always the case.
Comment by avoiceofreason — April 17, 2007 @ 1:06 am |
Both the L.A. Times and Larry Kramer hate conservatives just as much as their claim that “straights hate gays”. Anyone who generalizes about one group’s opinion of another is a pea-wit, but that’s the kind of low-life, shoddy journalism typical of the L.A. Times and left-leaning newspapers. You know how it works – Republicans and conservatives are low-brow, mean-spirited and homophobic, it’s only sophisticated, kind-hearted and inclusive liberals and progressives that see the truth as it really is. The fact is, there are people on both sides who can reasonably disagree with one another as to what marriage is, who should be married, and the civil rights of same-sex unions. And it wrong to tar good and honest people with the “homophobe” and “hatred” tag simply because their faith and thousands of years of human society has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Comment by The Great White Shank — April 17, 2007 @ 3:12 am |
Yes, it is too easy to smear the hatred paint brush on all people and towards all groups.
I’m just for civility here, and while I am actually not in favor of same sex marriage, I wonder if it’s the symbol of marriage that people are fighting over.
Comment by avoiceofreason — April 17, 2007 @ 3:57 am |
I don’t hate Queer’s, I hate the spirit behind them…I don’t agree with a Queer’s lifestyle simply because it goes against the word of God…I believe your a disease that is eating away at this country, however, I don’t hate you..Because hating goes against the word of God…(hating the spirit doesn’t count because it is a spirit from hell,it’s okay to hate the devil)…I am to love my neighbor, I am to love my enemies, and that is the word of God…I will live by the word of God, and I will die by the word of God…I am no compromiser when it comes to the word of God…Queer’s cannot justify there lifestyles by the word of God, and anything contrary to the word of God is a sin, period! The only rights Queer’s have, is to get right with God!
Truthbear
Comment by truthbear — April 17, 2007 @ 4:40 am |
Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that many would not be able to divide the deed from the doer as well as you do. The other question is what role does the “word of God” or any relgious text or belief do with the framing of public policy.
Comment by avoiceofreason — April 17, 2007 @ 4:59 am |
“Civil and fair treatment with regard to child custody and visitation, estate issues, visitation in hospitals, and life decisions “should” be settled matters, but often they are not when one of the parties is a homosexual.”
In order for this to happen current statutes regarding divorce, inheritance, etc. would have to be altered. The main bias appears to be in the law- written long before homosexuals were open about their sexuality.
Maybe it is the libertarian in me that asks, why is government involved anyway? There wouldn’t be a problem with one man leaving his life partner all he owns if the government didn’t want a large share of that wealth (from straight and gay alike).
Comment by totaltransformation — April 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am |
Typically the trade off is government involvement increases equity, but may decrease efficiency.
Some times one is more important than the other.
Comment by avoiceofreason — April 17, 2007 @ 9:02 pm |